A Multi-Digressioned Ode to MY Gardasil Pumping Warm Bucket of #!$$

Inflammatory diary titles aside, let me just state up front that I don’t have a favorite among the current GOP candidates and I would like to think that I am now way too mature to throw down crazy “…will never cast my vote for Candidate X…” ultimatums (1).  As you will see, I have never been a fan of my governor (Mr. Perry) but I am doing my best to keep an open mind with respect to Presidential Candidate Perry. (I saw him as a local Barnes and Noble event with Mr. Gingrich last summer…actually shook hands with the extremely large headed former Speaker…and the Governor came off as kind of small. But, I digress).  For that matter, I don’t have strong opinions about non-candidates either…other than noting that “token pseudo-conservative” David Brooks thinks one of them is a “joke” (2) so she is one step closer to getting my vote if she wants it.  But, I digress.

I have waded into this now silly vaccine mandate discussion a couple of time already and the meat of a couple of those comments should go a long way to what I want to say here.  (I say silly because the waters are now so muddied and everyone is just “talking” at each other instead of to each other…nothing is being accomplished on eight side.)  Anyway, first, from June (3):

I cannot decide which disgusts me more in this REDSTATE discussion…

…the “God Forbid the man wanted to immunize people”/”If this saves lives it’s worth it” line of thought or the “there was an opt-out clause” defense. 

Had the Governor offered free immunizations to all who chose to accept his generosity at the expense of the taxpayers of Texas, I might (only maybe) then invoke the Almighty with a hearty “God bless him”.  But the governmental imposition of an anti-liberty baseline condition with a potential reclamation of your rights via the generosity of the state bureaucracy is about as far from my version of conservatism as I can imagine…not to mention a near perfect scaled representation of the Obamacare waiver business model.

(Here I resist to digress into a rant about elitism among our ruling class not being limited only to beltway snobs and the grotesque nature of, to quote Hayek, “socialists of all parties”.)

For what it’s worth, from my perspective here in North Texas, Mr. Perry is at his best (and quite good in general) during election years…during those off years he isn’t worth a warm bucket of [#!$$].

…and from the same thread:

But the overreach is very real and very wrong

I guess we all have our own pain thresholds for such things but, with all due respect, this one should be clear.  Based on the discussion above we are to suppose that it is justifiable to separate all citizens from a right because a subsection of the public (1) may refuse to blindly accept a government giveaway that that government insists will improve their lives and/or (2) refuse to educate themselves (as parents in this case) to the potential benefit of a particular vaccination. Yes, it is slightly more complicated than that but…ultimately; I would say yes, they would be making a deliberate destructive choice.  (Responsibilities come with citizenship.)

I hate to imagine an America (or a state) where all citizens must incrementally give up ever increasing numbers of rights to protect every subgroup that willingly engages in risky behavior an[d] remains ignorant of the consequences and potential solutions available to them.

While you are entitled to your opinion…which may very well be more educated and valid than mine…I suggest we are at a point in our history when every encroachment on any right by government should be made against the stiffest of headwinds instead of just accepting them as close enough to some existing and already “accepted” program.  The mission creep that follows that mentality…particularly within well established governmental bureaucracies…can be very destructive.  Look no further than the EPA…(again, don’t get me started.)

Again, thank you and all who commented above for a spirited and civil dialog even though I came late to this discussion.

Aside from my input, that did tend to be a rather good discussion and is worth reading though again.  Ultimately, Mr. Erickson hit on the point much more succinctly earlier today (4): this is an issue of liberty.  (A conspiratorial cynic may note the somewhat out-of-place rash of postings on this topic back in that June timeframe…almost as if they were planted there so that maybe in mid-September or so some could pull out the “we’ve been over all of this before”/”its old news” brush off if needed. But, yet again, I digress.)

Then, from mid-August (5):

The Act that Disqualifies Perry…

…this is NOT.  It was a mistake and, may I humbly suggest, for people in this neighborhood it should fall somewhere between a big “nothingburger” and a “watch item” with respect to a viable candidate depending on one’s own personal level of conservatism and intellectual contortionist abilities.  The entire issue certainly does not deserve the “ink” dumped into 145 and 60-plus comments. 

I still stand by my position voiced last month and don’t wish to rehash it here except to say that the “…but there was an opt out clause…” defense falls on the wrong side my conservatism threshold NO MATTER WHAT EXPLANATION YOU COME UP WITH but, then again, there is obviously no “conservatism test” for posting or commenting here.  As a “watch item” I will continue to look for any additional activity that may point toward a disqualifying trend but I’m certainly not immature enough to throw out the “never cast my vote for Perry” ultimatum.

To be clear, the average voter could and probably should regard this issue as not a big deal at all.  However, in a community that prides itself on promoting conservatism there sure seems to be a lot of rationalization to justify a predetermined position for a candidate. 

As for liberty and the proper conservative inclinations: If Mr. Perry was so concerned about the health of these girls then offering free vaccinations to his fellow citizens (at the expense of his fellow citizens) was the proper action to pursue instead of mandating it on his subjects.  And if, as I have seen mentioned periodically in this discussion, the mandate created insurance benefits that warranted momentary non-conservativeness that is acceptable to RedState then I fear for our future.  Once such violence to my liberty is made acceptable on the Right…everyone’s freedoms are on the block and, as the story goes, “we are just haggling over the price”.

Proud Redstate Member since April 2006…?

(1) A 2008 Ntrepid reference – Go search the archives yourself.

(2) http://www.redstate.com/ntrepid/2009/11/20/hey-beltway-elitist-snobs-shove-that-smugness-up-your-david-brooks/

(3) http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/06/17/rick-perrys-scandalous-skeletons-come-out-of-the-closet/#comment-113569

(4) http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/09/13/hpv-and-why-it-matters/

(5) http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2011/08/17/more-on-perry-and-gardasil/#comment-9367